Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Finally, a ruling that deals with the commerce clause as it was actually intended to be used, rather than the current "the federal government can do anything it wants at any time simply by saying the word 'commerce'" interpretation.

Amazon to states: "There should be no Internet sales taxes created on the state level, because this deals with interstate commerce."Amazon to federal government: "The federal government shouldn't handle sales taxes, they should be handled on a state level. Plus, you wouldn't want to have to answer to the voters regarding a *tax increase*, would you?"

End result: No sales taxes on Amazon, which is almost definitely the outcome they want.

Good for the court. Good for Amazon. I pay 10% on anything I buy in Arkansas (including food) and they scream that it's not enough. Funny, I paid 3% sales tax here in the 70's and the roads weren't any worse than they are today. Screw any state that attempts to cash in on internet sales.

But then I realized that of course Amazon has the power to negotiate the fees that they pay, while my local coffee shop almost certainly cannot. So, consider this a "+1 Insightful," instead of a "-1 What?"

Here's an idea to clear up this mess nicely: get rid of all sales taxes. They're extremely regressive [wikipedia.org] and complicate and impede commerce. Increase income, property, and capital gains taxes to compensate.

With so many advantages of property taxes over sales taxes, the sales tax just doesn't make much sense. Conveniently, eliminating the sales tax would also solve the problem of collecting it over the Internet.

But the sales tax is part of a tactic to maximize revenue without the taxpayer noticing. The fewer events that you tax, the greater the rate on each one. And then the taxpayer sees it and starts to ask questions. Like: What the hell are you clowns doing with all this money?

THIS. Determining the tax classification for every product for over 10,000 tax jurisdictions, with vague and conflicting guidance on the rates to be applied from each one, is an extremely difficult task and imposes an undue burden for internet retailers. If the states want to get a cut of the action, they need to drastically reduce and streamline their sales tax code.

The Supreme Court is engaging in egregious question begging here. They argue that every inmate going into general population requires a strip search, but they ignored whether it was apprpriate for this fellow to go into general population at all.

If every inmane in jail requires a strip search, and strip searches for minor crimes are unreasonable, then it's unreasonable to send people accused of minor crimes to jail at all.

You seem to have a lack of understanding about percentages. That's ok, the government likes people who don't understand percentages. That way, they can claim that they need to raise the tax rate to make more money, when in fact, mathematics says that if 3% tax on 1970's income was enough to get by, then 3% tax on 2012 income (about 5.4 times as high) should also be plenty.

They argue that every inmate going into general population requires a strip search, but they ignored whether it was apprpriate for this fellow to go into general population at all.

The Supreme Court rules on specific points of law, not on how they fell the overall case should have gone. Despite how it's portrayed in some news articles, they are not a catch-all "I really think I should have one this case" appeals court.

If you have a suit that claims your rights were violated because you were strip-searched upon admission to jail and you end up appealing that suit, the Supreme Court is going to rule on whether the strip search is Constitutional. If you wanted to make the claim that you were falsely arrested or unjustly imprisoned, you should have made your suit about that.